Attack Turns

[Lore]

OH I love debating with you people.

As for my Idea, i think you should maintain your AT for X plus 1 turn, x equeling the amount of time left in the turn you logged in. Then you lose 1/2 AT capasity (in example of 500 it would be 250) per turn after that your online but do not use them. If you farm them away you accept no losses.

This way, you sleep 8 hrs, wake up, log in, bank/train, and go to work. You do lose some AT capacity, but not reset to 0 again.

[semper]

ah, so it only fades away lore, not get completely erased. That could be good.. perhaps rather deadly on the coding front though?

It would make the game a lot more accessible to someone like myself who wont be able to give it a mass of time except in the opening hours/days.

[Thade]

OH I love debating with you people.

As for my Idea, i think you should maintain your AT for X plus 1 turn, x equeling the amount of time left in the turn you logged in. Then you lose 1/2 AT capasity (in example of 500 it would be 250) per turn after that your online but do not use them. If you farm them away you accept no losses.

This way, you sleep 8 hrs, wake up, log in, bank/train, and go to work. You do lose some AT capacity, but not reset to 0 again.

I like this version. Would really be worth a try in beta.


Universe: The very minor difference was that in my example the person didn't log out but the turn rolled over before they finished. Both were good questions to me.

[Lore]

Edit: Another thought - perhaps have a max number of ATs and have your per turn increase of ATs be based off your current number in some percentage formulae. So say max ATs are 2k and you have 1k currently your next turn you'd get 10ATs until you reached 1.1k then you'd get 11ATs per turn. So the less often you use them the more you'd gain per turn. (or the reverse might work better)

I just now got this, I read it but it didnt click until just now

I like it, if i got it right

So lets say we got 10K AT max

you gain AT per turn based on that correct?
So how fast you gain depends on how often you use them?

example
0 to 1K AT onhand = 1 AT per turn
2K = 2 at per turn
3 = 3
4=4
5=5
6=6
7=7
8=8
9=9

Meaning someone who farms lightly of insnt perticularly stong militarily has plenty of AT

A heavy scrapper or someone at WAR is actually slowed and must put though into weather a massing is worth the cost.

If thats right thats a truely intresting idea

is slows farmers, raiders, and massers, but doesnt stop them

[semper]

Edit: Another thought - perhaps have a max number of ATs and have your per turn increase of ATs be based off your current number in some percentage formulae. So say max ATs are 2k and you have 1k currently your next turn you'd get 10ATs until you reached 1.1k then you'd get 11ATs per turn. So the less often you use them the more you'd gain per turn. (or the reverse might work better)

I just now got this, I read it but it didnt click until just now

I like it, if i got it right

So lets say we got 10K AT max

you gain AT per turn based on that correct?
So how fast you gain depends on how often you use them?

example
0 to 1K AT onhand = 1 AT per turn
2K = 2 at per turn
3 = 3
4=4
5=5
6=6
7=7
8=8
9=9

Meaning someone who farms lightly of insnt perticularly stong militarily has plenty of AT

A heavy scrapper or someone at WAR is actually slowed and must put though into weather a massing is worth the cost.

If thats right thats a truely intresting idea

is slows farmers, raiders, and massers, but doesnt stop them

oooOOOOOOH!

Indeed lore! VERY interesting...and it really does benefit the people who dont play too, considering what the market is likely to be like.

Lets say I dont farm or anything at all until I hit the 10k mark.. all I have to do if I remain in a war is limit my AT's use so I dont drop below 4k (giving me a good 4at's a turn and beyond..).

Obviously though... 10k is way too many. The limit should only be about the 2-3k mark ultimate maximum I think. Otherwise there is no point in changing it to the current AT generation system. (in other words! keep it small!)

[Lore]

10K was just an easy number and i suck at math

[Su]

How about 1 turn per tick.

Sounds like a good plan!

[Lore]

How about 1 turn per tick.

Sounds like a good plan!

any caps?

any buying?

any trading?

[Su]

How about 1 turn per tick.

Sounds like a good plan!

any caps?

any buying?

any trading?

Debatable!

Trading I agree with, however it's finding a way around the abusers that currently puzzle me.

Caps, well perhaps but if we keep to 1 turn per tick then it will be hard to get to the cap.

Buying, Nope. I don't agree with. I completely support the need for this game to get funds to move forward with so I agree with SS and USS. I just don't agree with Ingame Markets, Free or paid.

[adminGary]

There is a lot of issues with trading, the bigest being people feeding one account. If there was a decent way to prevent that behavor I would allow for a P2P market to exist.

AT is supposed to be a device that makes the game have a presence of time. Therefore I don't like the idea of purchasing AT, it robs the game of an element of gameplay.

[semper]

P2P market is very simple... just give us 1 p2p trade per week, and put a cap on how many resources can be traded. In the first few weeks, make it no more than 150,000 naq, 1000 uu and 30 at's or something, and correlate that against a person's army size or something, much like the bank size is done. (obviously giving each person an individual max trade..)

So in the end, we end up with 1 ppt a week (please dear god rename it), and 1 p2p transfer a week. It would also stop people playing the game just to make a $$ profit like they do on SGW main at current, but at the same time, it keeps wiser p2p transfers accessible.

Maybe add an expensive upgrade in that can max it to 3 p2p trades per week, but keep the resource cap....or not.. that sorta counters the anti money making scheme a bit...

Its a suggestion anyway.

[Su]

I agree with Semper.

Keeping turns at one per tick make it some one person cannot put up a fight against an entire alliance, which we all know happens on main and is complete crap.

By having the p2p network you can have a higher substance for team play which is required for this game and makes it fun. Most of us play for the social network and the friends we've made over time.

[Juliette]

Why should one person be able to fight an entire alliance?!

Hmm, you mean the reverse then? An alliance fighting one person, so that the person cannot defend themselves except only when they are in an alliance themselves..


I like the following idea; tiered turn generation. I believe adminGary proposed it earlier?

[Su]

I support one turn only. Tier and any other method to alter turns should not exist.

I also support transferring of resources, but in a manageable sense.

By adding it so people get a ton of turns all the time basically makes it so let say for example.

Su decides to fight Omega Allegiance.

Su get turns all the times, Su takes all these resources and masses everyone in Omega and then I decide to mass all the rankings!

Point is resources are far to easy to come by right now in main, hence the pointlessness of wars. There's no meaning and the objective is something unachievable.

On the flip side, making resources so limited is also bad but in a different manner. By adding the ability for people to work together using a Broker idea but with a way to manage it as suggested by others in my opinion is the way to go. It also adds team play to the game.

[Juliette]

I support one turn only. Tier and any other method to alter turns should not exist.

I also support transferring of resources, but in a manageable sense.

By adding it so people get a ton of turns all the time basically makes it so let say for example.

Su decides to fight Omega Allegiance.

Su get turns all the times, Su takes all these resources and masses everyone in Omega and then I decide to mass all the rankings!

Point is resources are far to easy to come by right now in main, hence the pointlessness of wars. There's no meaning and the objective is something unachievable.

On the flip side, making resources so limited is also bad but in a different manner. By adding the ability for people to work together using a Broker idea but with a way to manage it as suggested by others in my opinion is the way to go. It also adds team play to the game.

That's a clear explanation, Su..
Convinced me.